2. Which SL clubs do not spend the full cap of 1.65 mill currently?3. Are there any SL clubs that do not have a chance of winning SL at present?4. Which clubs could spend an extra 400k on players?

5. I'd guess that only Cas, Wakefield, London, Hull KR may not spend the full cap, and they would be among those that would not want to increase payments to 2 million. However, perhaps up to 10 clubs could and may want to.

1. Yes sir in my opinion, but my opinion is based on something other than an assumption. I've read exactly what Peacock has said and noted how SKY have treated the clubs below the Elite over the last 17 years, and noted the driving factor for the proposal - bigger wages for the top players.

A lot of people have posted many times on SL1 & SL2 particularly excited at the prospect of Championship clubs getting sums like £500K a year from SKY. That's "in their opinion".

Once opinions clash it's time to debate why we form those opinions.

2. Millward said most clubs spend the cap, HKR and Cas have said they don't/can't. I suspect London, Widnes & wakefield are a bit short because there's nobody to buy worth top wages.

3. Everyone's got a chance, but Hudgell has intimated HKR have no chance, so he's stopped spending. I suspect that you could name a few more that realistically have "no chance".

Hudgell said it's OK spending full cap but clearly the top clubs have the better players and also better coaching, conditioning and medical set ups.

What he was intimating was it's not just about spending full cap. Spending full cap doesn't ensure competitiveness, according to him.

Theses are not my "opinions" I just listen to those who know when they speak.

4. "could" or "will"? I can only say that most of the directors of the SL clubs could spend more because they have millions as i understand it. All I have done is listen to what they have said about spending more, and also listen to people on here who have the inside knowledge on their club. Most of the chairmen seem to have come to a collective agreement they don't want to just splash the cash.

If they don't then I logically conclude that the £2,000,000 Salaries Peacock wants to see the top players get would most likely be funded by the SKY cash going just ten ways. The figures actually add up. If you split SKY money ten ways it gives ten clubs currently spending full cap and competing the extra £400K to raise the cap.

But OF COURSE I could be wrong and my reasoned out logical stab at what may be going on may actually be proved to be wrong and the money may well be split as several Championship clubs fans believe it will by SKY paying up to £500K to clubs like York, Sheffield, Batley, Leigh etc.

We can drop the Salary cap to £1,000,000 and all 14 clubs can make a profit the firrst year this is done.

Did you watch Ian Millward this weekend who says the loss of players to the NRL will accelerate.

To drop the cap will hasten that process.

Discuss......

The British game is going to have to produce players far superior to their NRL counterparts for this to be a significant migration. Given the numbers of of players produced in Australia I would think that there would still be a significant imbalance of players moving towards the UK.

And, to be fair, whether we drop our salary cap or not, the NRL is so awash with cash that this is going to be a possibility, salary cap reduction or not. Of course we could always introduce an international transfer ban. We did it before twice and it didn't work for either Australia or England on either occasion.

1. Yes sir in my opinion, but my opinion is based on something other than an assumption. I've read exactly what Peacock has said and noted how SKY have treated the clubs below the Elite over the last 17 years, and noted the driving factor for the proposal - bigger wages for the top players.

A lot of people have posted many times on SL1 & SL2 particularly excited at the prospect of Championship clubs getting sums like £500K a year from SKY. That's "in their opinion".

Once opinions clash it's time to debate why we form those opinions.

2. Millward said most clubs spend the cap, HKR and Cas have said they don't/can't. I suspect London, Widnes & wakefield are a bit short because there's nobody to buy worth top wages.

3. Everyone's got a chance, but Hudgell has intimated HKR have no chance, so he's stopped spending. I suspect that you could name a few more that realistically have "no chance".

Hudgell said it's OK spending full cap but clearly the top clubs have the better players and also better coaching, conditioning and medical set ups.

What he was intimating was it's not just about spending full cap. Spending full cap doesn't ensure competitiveness, according to him.

Theses are not my "opinions" I just listen to those who know when they speak.

4. "could" or "will"? I can only say that most of the directors of the SL clubs could spend more because they have millions as i understand it. All I have done is listen to what they have said about spending more, and also listen to people on here who have the inside knowledge on their club. Most of the chairmen seem to have come to a collective agreement they don't want to just splash the cash.

If they don't then I logically conclude that the £2,000,000 Salaries Peacock wants to see the top players get would most likely be funded by the SKY cash going just ten ways. The figures actually add up. If you split SKY money ten ways it gives ten clubs currently spending full cap and competing the extra £400K to raise the cap.

But OF COURSE I could be wrong and my reasoned out logical stab at what may be going on may actually be proved to be wrong and the money may well be split as several Championship clubs fans believe it will by SKY paying up to £500K to clubs like York, Sheffield, Batley, Leigh etc.

All are entitled to their opinions....

And Hudgell could be right judging from the two recent Hull KR v Saints matches, one with the prospect of a big pay day at Wembley at the end of the rainbow.